You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
SCORPIONS OF UTAH
John D. Johnson and Dorald M. Allred
The Great Basin Naturalist
Vol. 32, No. 3 (September 30, 1972), pp. 154-170
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41711341
Page Count: 17
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Scorpions, Inflorescences, River basins, Species, Female animals, Data collection, Leaf blade, Canyons, Standard error, State colleges
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
The 736 scorpions representing nine species collected in Utah, listed in order of greatest to least abundance, are Vaejovis boreus, V. utahensis, Anuroctonus phaeodoctylus, V. confusus, Hadrurus spadix, V. becki, V. wupatkiensis, H. arizonensis and Centruroides sculpturatus. Centruroides sculpturatus, H. arizonensis, V. becki, V. confusus and V. wupatkiensis are reported from Utah for the first time. Vaejovis boreus is the most widely distributed of the Utah scorpions. Vaejovis boreus and V. confusus occur in both the Great Basin and the Colorado River Basin. Centruroides sculpturatus, Hadrurus arizonensis, H. spadix, V. wupatkiensis, and V. utahensis occur only in the Colorado River Basin, whereas Anuroctonus phaeodactylus and V. becki are confined to the Great Basin. Anuroctonus phaeodactylus, V. boreus and V. confusus occur from the southern to the northern border of the state. Both males and females were taken from May through October, with greatest numbers in May, June, and July. Females were taken in greater numbers than males. This may be related to their mating habits during the collecting periods, and does not necessarily indicate other than a 1:1 ratio in normal populations. Morphological variations associated with distribution were distinguishable in two of the species collected—Anuroctonus phaeodactylus and Vaejovis boreus. The mean and standard error computed for the carapace, preabdomen, postabdomen, and telson on these two species indicate a significant morphological variation in the size of the preabdomen between the northern and southern populations.
The Great Basin Naturalist © 1972 Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum, Brigham Young University